K.A. Mohammed Shafi, J.

This Election Petition is filed by the defeated candidate from 9 -Thrissur Constituency to the House of People for which poll was conducted on 28.2.1998 and the result was declared on 3.3.1998, to declare that the election of the 1st respondent - returned candidate is void and to declare that the petitioner has been duly elected from 9 -Thrissur Constituency in the election to the House of People for which poll was held on 28.2.1998.

2. The 1st respondent, who is the contesting respondent has filed a detailed written statement controverting and denying the allegations made in the Election Petition against him. He has also filed CMP No. 4942/98 to dismiss the Election Petition at the threshold without hearing it on merits.

3. The petitioner in the Election Petition who is the 1st respondent in the CMP has filed a detailed counter affidavit in that CMP and the petitioner therein has filed a reply affidavit.

4. The petitioner in the E.P. has filed CMP No. 5092/98 under O.VI R.17 of the CPC to amend the Election Petition by inserting the word 'petitioner' at the end of the paragraph under the caption 'Reliefs Claimed' and above the verification and to subscribe the signature of the petitioner above the word 'petitioner' so inserted. The 1st respondent in the E.P. vehemently opposed the petition as unsustainable and the amendment sought for is not permissible under law. Both the above petitions are heard together and this common order is passed.

5. The learned senior counsel appearing for the election petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has signed and verified the above election petition filed under S.101(b) of the Representation of the People Act to declare the election of the 1st respondent as void and to declare that the petitioner has been duly elected. According to him, in spite of the fact that the petitioner has signed at the bottom of all pages in pages 1 to 13 of the pleadings and in page 14 wherein the reliefs are claimed and verified in page 14 as contemplated under O. VI R.15 of the CPC, the 1st respondent has raised the contention that there is no signature below the reliefs claimed in the Election Petition. In order to cure that defect the petitioner has filed C.M.P. 5092/98, though the contention raised by the 1st respondent is a highly hyper-technical contention.

6. The counsel for the 1st respondent has vehemently submitted that the Election Petitions liable to be dismissed at the threshold as it is defective and unsustainable under law and the defect in the Election Petition which go to the root of the case are not curable under law. According to the 1st respondent the E.P. is not signed by the petitioner. It is not verified by him. There is conflict in verification in the E.P. as well as the affidavit filed in support of the Election Petition. There is no verification of the affidavit as prescribed under law and therefore, there is no affidavit as contemplated under the election law which should entail in dismissal of the Election Petition. There is no verification in the three Annexures to the Election Petition as prescribed under law. There is omission of the number of Annexures I to III in the verification. Paragraphs 8A, 8B and 8C in the Election Petition narrating corrupt practice against the 1st respondent are very vague which are liable to be expunged and there is no cause of action against the 1st respondent in the remaining pleadings in the E.P. Therefore, the Election Petition is liable to be dismissed at the threshold.

7. The learned senior counsel appearing for the election petitioner submitted that the petitioner has filed the Election Petition as required under law and even if it is not signed, the Election Petition cannot be discarded or rejected and that defect of not signing the pleadings being an irregularity, can be rectified by invoking the power under O. VI R. H of the CPC.

8. S.81 of the Representation of the People Act deals with presentation of election